CreateDebate


Amarel's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Amarel's arguments, looking across every debate.
0 points

There is no "nature" of value where value is not objectively real

That's absurd as usual. Subjective phenomenon exist objectively. But then, I'm arguing with the same idiot who believes that human beings don't have a nature. Do human beings exist objectively? Do you suppose there is anything that has a nature?

1 point

I saw a guy take a blotch color vision test wherein numbers are visible only through distinguishing between color variations. After the test he went on about how stupid the test was because they kept asking about numbers but their obviously weren't any numbers. Everyone paying attention understood what happened except for him. You're like him.

1 point

Your kind of stupidity isn't usually this far out. 'Labor theory is invalid because it is critiquing capitalism which is invalid'. That's not a valid position at all. If you critique my invalid position, you need to use a VALID position to do so smart guy.

Indeed, no philosophical work accurately describes the nature of value

Not only is it false, but you demonstrate that even you don't believe it later in the very same sentence. Watch

because value is entirely subjective, arbitrary, and relative to the observer.

Oh? Is that the nature of value? Have you accurately describes it?

1 point

I called you boring so you called me boring. You know what that is? Haha oh man. I guess this thread is done.

1 point

Ignoring the big IF in my post made this whole bit pretty boring. You'll have to do better nom.

0 points

Hence, capitalism needs defending against labour theory, not the other way around.

Labor theory does not accurately describe the nature of value. It is an invalid theory. Thus, it doesn't qualify as a valid critique of anything at all.

A black man doesn't need to defend the legitimacy of his existence against a white supremacist. The racist theory is invalid.

1 point

I pointed out that Plato's ideas are not invalid simply because the Greeks liked to sleep with kids.

I knew we would get to your backpedal eventually, that's why I downvoted your original post (for posterity). It's plain in your post that Plato would be judged for Greek pedo acceptance IF we judged the past by the values of the present. That's what your argument was about afterall.

I articulated this exact point in my first post here, but you are extraordinarily slow..So here we are.

1 point

Between you and FM, only FM tried to defend labor theory. But not until after I posted that debate. You, on the other hand can't even grasp the meaning of basic fallacies or the reasons they are invalid.

I suppose it's unfair to expect you to try much of anything. "Try looking around blind man"..Just rude of me .

Amarel(5136) Clarified
0 points

Nazis weren't fought for their ideas, but for their actions. Similarly, communists who theorize ought to be left alone, stupidity and historical ignorance isn't a crime. But communists who practice? They need to lose thier revolution in the swiftest, most effective way possible. I don't think you have anything to worry about there.

1 point

God damn nom. FM can be pretty despicable, but at least he isn't utterly lazy (he gave a valiant effort in that debate). But I suppose that's unfair to you and your disability.

Amarel(5136) Clarified
1 point

What other stereotypes do you rely on to form judgments about individuals?

1 point

Apparently I have to reiterate what this particular thread is about.

Your collectivism causes you provide an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally if not for the time component of the topic. Your near universal use of ad hominem causes you to suppose that, after judging Socrates and Plato for their status as Greeks, you could discount their argument for the same, without regard for their actual arguments.

Amarel(5136) Clarified
1 point

I heard it's wrong to blame the victim. I expect it's also wrong to equate the president with a victim and to hope he finds out what the murder victim found out.

If a man gets a bullet in his head for political beliefs, it should be very easy to condemn.

Amarel(5136) Clarified
1 point

Is there something particular dishonest about Jewish lawyers as compared to gentile lawyers?

1 point

it would NOT be reasonable

To judge those of the past based on present standards. Do we judge Plato for Greeks accepting pedophiles? No! Because you can't just the past by present standards!

Nevermind that you can't judge Plato for the ills of his group...keep going

0 points

Clearly, I am inferring that it is not logical to ignore the works of Plato

You provided an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally if not for the time component of the topic.

See? Collectivism is supposedly valid in your post, but due to the invalidity of judging the past by the present we cannot judge Plato for actions of Greeks. Keep going stupid. This is funny.

Amarel(5136) Clarified
0 points

I attack Marx for the content of his work, or I attack his work. Always have. I don't know anything about his maid. And unless you have some other account, I don't know you.

1 point

To assist you with reading comprehension, I have identified the contents of the post in a more simplistic form for your benefit.

In order of the sentences of my original post:

1- Your post demonstrates your fallacies.

2- This the first fallacy.

3- This is the second fallacy.

4- Comment on entertainment value.

This effort is similar to describing red to a color blind person. That's it for lessons for today.

1 point

The ancient Greeks regularly had sex with children. Should we therefore ignore the works of Plato and Socrates?

Plato and Socrates were individuals. It's fallacious to look at a group (the Greeks) in order to judge individuals who cannot be assumed to act as you suppose the group acts. This is the same fallacy with racism or any other form of bigotry. It's collectivism and it's a short cut for simplistic minds.

Funny, because I don't usually see you responding to quotes from Plato's Republic with 10,000 words about how we should ignore Plato because he was a paedophile.

Even if it were the case that Plato was a pedophile, that would not be a valid reason to disregard true things that he said. Ad Hominem is fallacious because the validity or truth of a statement is independent of who ever is stating it.

I know this is all lost on you, but you told me to shut up. So I thought another free lesson was in order. You're welcome.

Amarel(5136) Clarified
1 point

See above. .

Amarel(5136) Clarified
1 point

It's not merely insults and accusations but also vague accusations? Wow, I should write that down.

Amarel(5136) Clarified
1 point

You read it right but you clearly didn't comprehend any of it. Ad hominem isn't merely an insult or accusation... Nevermind, I often forget that lessons are completely lost on you.

Amarel(5136) Clarified
1 point

The ancient Greeks regularly had sex with children. Should we therefore ignore the works of Plato and Socrates?

This beautifully demonstrates your most common fallacies. Your collectivism causes you provide an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally if not for the time component of the topic. Your near universal use of ad hominem causes you to suppose that, after judging Socrates and Plato for their status as Greeks, you could discount their argument for the same, without regard for their actual arguments.

You can be entertaining on occasion.


2 of 364 Pages: << Prev Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]